Reading mode: Light Dark

what general use lens do i buy with my a33

Go to last post
I

iori77

Well-known member
Messages
202
Reaction score
7
Location
EG
hii guys
i am about to buy a new a33 body only
and i need a kit lens nicer than the 18-55
most of my shooting are indoors and i have a flash for that
what i hated about the 18-55 that i always needed to go more than 55
i am searching in the used category coz i cant buy a new good lens

anyway here are my options:

1st option cz 16-80 for 400 euros which is my dream lens but a bit expensive for me

2nd option sony 28-75 f2.8 for 350 euros the price is a bit expensive but i can do it i find most of my shooting in that range anyway and i like the 2.8 in the depth field , i have no worries about lowlight coz i have the flash as i said earlier

3rd option to buy the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 new which will b less than both but i am afraid that it will have issues with my a33
i though of the tamron but didnt appeal to me coz i hated the range

i know that asked a similar question b4 but i really cant decide
i know that everybody says the cz is a dreamy lens
what do u think do i stretch my budget and get the cz
or is the 18-55 a good lens and add the 55-200 would b a more practical thinking

what about the weight of these lenses would it b 2 much for the a33
 
iori77 said:
hii guys
i am about to buy a new a33 body only
and i need a kit lens nicer than the 18-55
most of my shooting are indoors and i have a flash for that
what i hated about the 18-55 that i always needed to go more than 55
i am searching in the used category coz i cant buy a new good lens
Click to expand...
Seems like you are looking at lenses that will barely extend your range.

The 16-80 is good optically but questionable build quality

To really cover range consider the 18-250 Sony. A good travel/walkabout lens and with flash good inside too.

Walt
 
Dennis said:
You can see my thread here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=36615191

for thoughts on the A33 & 16-80. I don't care for the balance of the lens on the A33 (smaller or bigger lenses are easier) and would probably end up with an 18-55 kit zoom.

Personally, I'd go for:
35/1.8
18-55
85/2.8

for a nice, compact, capable kit, then add 55-200 if you need to do tele. It can always handle bigger, specialty lenses.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
wow dennis
your post is so helpful
about ur advice the thing is i have a tamron 90mm so a 85 f 2.8 would b a waste

18-55 i tried it b4 and didnt like it much or u can say i liked the tamron better
i though about the 35mm but i postponded it
by the way i am a total ameture so i really appretiate ur advice
 
WaltKnapp said:
To really cover range consider the 18-250 Sony. A good travel/walkabout lens and with flash good inside too.
Click to expand...
I almost, but not quite agree with Walt. I would vote for the TAMRON version of the 18-250 if you can still find one. The 18-250 has limitations, but I just can't say enough good things about the versatility, color, price, & IQ. It really can't be beat for the price.

Another option would be the Sony 16-105.

The newer versions of the Sigma 17-70 should work very well on your a33, and it has a built in focus motor. That would be important to you if you do much video, as the in-body screw drive focus motor reportedly makes enough noise while changing focus to be heard on video clips.
--
Tacoma, Washington, USA
 
What about the balance using a 18-250 on a A55? Is it going to be very front heavy?
--
Quote: Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes
Oscar Wilde
 
isn't all that big or heavy. It's absolutely a perfect fit for the A350 (I have't handled the A55 yet). It was the only lens I owned for the A350 for quite a few months, and I just loved it - and still do as an everyday walk-around lens. It still spends more time on my A350 than any other lens I have (Minolta 50mm 1.7, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 24mm, and Sony 70-400G)
--
Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350... Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

 
well my most important thing is sharp and good colour images
the bad range i can live but i am more interested in IQ

will the 18-250 deliver me the with IQ i seek it will b a no brainer coz i have a flash which will help me in low light
 
if you mainly post your images on the net or display them on your own (or others') computer screens, or make prints up to 8X10 inches or so, the 18-250 will be sharp enough. If you're going to pixel-peep a high-res file at 100%, it will depend on the focal length and aperture you have used, whether it will look sharp or not. I routinely make 11X14 inch enlargements from my 18-250 and A350 for donating to charities for auctions and for sale, and my customers have been very happy with the prints. If I look into the corners of a 18mm WA landscape on my computer screen @ 100% (pixel-for-pixel on screen), I will see noticable edge softness.

If you want to check out some of my images taken with the 18-250, there are hundreds here in all galleries and with all focal lengths and types of photography. The EXIF below the images will tell you which ones were taken with the 18-250.

http://www4.pbase.com/icicle50/root

--
Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350... Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

 


@100% on my laptop screen, I can actually read the names on the taxi cabs (car and van) in the lower left corner of the image. This was hand-held with a wee bit of cam movement, BTW. A tripoded shot would have been razor sharp all over.
--
Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350... Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

 
iori77 said:
Dennis said:
Personally, I'd go for:
35/1.8
18-55
85/2.8
Click to expand...
wow dennis
your post is so helpful
about ur advice the thing is i have a tamron 90mm so a 85 f 2.8 would b a waste
Click to expand...
It really depends on how you see yourself using the camera. In my case, I was really looking at it as a portable, carry-everywhere camera ... I have an A700 that I can use with my bigger lenses (which include the excellent 16-80 and the 70-300G). I chose NEX over the A33 because even with smaller lenses, I was more likely to grab the NEX to take anywhere & everywhere. If you don't share that same priority, then my preferences won't matter that much.

The 85/2.8 won't do anything the Tamron can't do ... except for faster AF ... but it's very compact. Autofocus will be quicker for candids, also video ... probably quieter, too, though the SAM lenses aren't as quiet as SSM and have clicks at the start & stop of focusing.
iori77 said:
18-55 i tried it b4 and didnt like it much or u can say i liked the tamron better
Click to expand...
I really enjoy the 16-80 ... had a 28-75/2.8 and love it as a "people lens" for a while until I got a couple faster primes. The 18-55 would be solely for convenience. It's about an inch shorter than the 16-80 (no big deal) but half the weight, so an easy to tote lens.
iori77 said:
i though about the 35mm but i postponded it
by the way i am a total ameture so i really appretiate ur advice
Click to expand...
If you like the 28-75/2.8 range, consider the Tamron 28-75 or a used Konica Minolta. They're basically all the same lens. The Konica Minolta is very quick when it comes to autofocus, is sharp enough wide open and very sharp across the frame from f/4, focuses close, is compact & light for a lens of this specification. The Tamron should be identical in those respects. You can see the KM on one of the cameras in my side-by-side shot, so can envision how it looks on the A33.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
WaltKnapp said:
iori77 wrote:
The 16-80 is good optically but questionable build quality
Click to expand...
I don't think there is anything wrong with the later examples. Mine is absolutely fine build quality wise.

Dave
 
If you're looking for a single "all-around" lens, I suggest the Sigma 18-250mm. Optically it is similar to the Tamron/Sony version but it also adds HSM (same as SSM) for fast focusing and quiet videos plus in-lens OIS which extends video recording time from 9 minutes with in-camera SSS to 29 minutes. Just get the latest stock and you won't have problems with SLTs.

However, as with all super zooms, image quality suffers in comparison to primes or even shorter zoom lengths.
 
Here is a shot with that lens, it is a very good walk around lens.





Gene
 
Useless for general use if you can't hold it steady for all sharpness.
Going to carry a tripod or what?

I found a 70-300G too diffcult to hold steady and got rid of it.
JerryCurtis said:


@100% on my laptop screen, I can actually read the names on the taxi cabs (car and van) in the lower left corner of the image. This was hand-held with a wee bit of cam movement, BTW. A tripoded shot would have been razor sharp all over.
--
Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350... Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

Click to expand...
--

Torch
 
JerryCurtis said:
if you mainly post your images on the net or display them on your own (or others') computer screens, or make prints up to 8X10 inches or so, the 18-250 will be sharp enough. If you're going to pixel-peep a high-res file at 100%, it will depend on the focal length and aperture you have used, whether it will look sharp or not. I routinely make 11X14 inch enlargements from my 18-250 and A350 for donating to charities for auctions and for sale, and my customers have been very happy with the prints. If I look into the corners of a 18mm WA landscape on my computer screen @ 100% (pixel-for-pixel on screen), I will see noticable edge softness.

If you want to check out some of my images taken with the 18-250, there are hundreds here in all galleries and with all focal lengths and types of photography. The EXIF below the images will tell you which ones were taken with the 18-250.

http://www4.pbase.com/icicle50/root

--
Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350... Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

Click to expand...
nice pics by the way
i really like them

and no i am not pixel peeper i just watch my pics on my tv and may make a normal a4 prints nothing special
so do u recomend that i save my money and get the tamron 18-250 on my A33
 
Dennis said:
iori77 said:
Dennis said:
Personally, I'd go for:
35/1.8
18-55
85/2.8
Click to expand...
wow dennis
your post is so helpful
about ur advice the thing is i have a tamron 90mm so a 85 f 2.8 would b a waste
Click to expand...
It really depends on how you see yourself using the camera. In my case, I was really looking at it as a portable, carry-everywhere camera ... I have an A700 that I can use with my bigger lenses (which include the excellent 16-80 and the 70-300G). I chose NEX over the A33 because even with smaller lenses, I was more likely to grab the NEX to take anywhere & everywhere. If you don't share that same priority, then my preferences won't matter that much.

The 85/2.8 won't do anything the Tamron can't do ... except for faster AF ... but it's very compact. Autofocus will be quicker for candids, also video ... probably quieter, too, though the SAM lenses aren't as quiet as SSM and have clicks at the start & stop of focusing.
Dennis said:
18-55 i tried it b4 and didnt like it much or u can say i liked the tamron better
Click to expand...
I really enjoy the 16-80 ... had a 28-75/2.8 and love it as a "people lens" for a while until I got a couple faster primes. The 18-55 would be solely for convenience. It's about an inch shorter than the 16-80 (no big deal) but half the weight, so an easy to tote lens.
Dennis said:
i though about the 35mm but i postponded it
by the way i am a total ameture so i really appretiate ur advice
Click to expand...
If you like the 28-75/2.8 range, consider the Tamron 28-75 or a used Konica Minolta. They're basically all the same lens. The Konica Minolta is very quick when it comes to autofocus, is sharp enough wide open and very sharp across the frame from f/4, focuses close, is compact & light for a lens of this specification. The Tamron should be identical in those respects. You can see the KM on one of the cameras in my side-by-side shot, so can envision how it looks on the A33.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
well i like portability too dennis

in fact i dont like taking my dslr to the streets or to occasions coz here in EGYPT it graps way too much unneeded attention which makes me a bit uncomfortable , so the nex would b a great solution for me
however my main objective of my camera is shooting indoors then comes out doors

the lack of a decent flash system and the very pricey lenses made me drop the nex from my listing
may b it will b my next camera but not my main one
thanks dennis u r really helpful
 
ConfuciusTse said:
If you're looking for a single "all-around" lens, I suggest the Sigma 18-250mm. Optically it is similar to the Tamron/Sony version but it also adds HSM (same as SSM) for fast focusing and quiet videos plus in-lens OIS which extends video recording time from 9 minutes with in-camera SSS to 29 minutes. Just get the latest stock and you won't have problems with SLTs.
Click to expand...
Good point on the Sigma for videos... hadn't thought of that, where the A350 doesn't do videos.
ConfuciusTse said:
However, as with all super zooms, image quality suffers in comparison to primes or even shorter zoom lengths.
Click to expand...
Generally that might be expected to be the case, but it's not always - for instance, I'd bet the 18-250 is better at all f/ls than the original 18-55 kit lens sold with the earlier Alphas, and would probably give the new SAMs a run for their money - though I haven't compared them. Bricks and mortar stores will usually let you try a lens before you buy, so you can do some tests of your own to be sure it's what you want.

--
Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350... Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

 
Just for you information. The old 18-55 kit lens might be bad, the new 18-55 SAM kit lens is another story. Optically it is very good. The down side is mainly the small aperture, limited range and rotating front element.
JerryCurtis said:
Generally that might be expected to be the case, but it's not always - for instance, I'd bet the 18-250 is better at all f/ls than the original 18-55 kit lens sold with the earlier Alphas, and would probably give the new SAMs a run for their money - though I haven't compared them. Bricks and mortar stores will usually let you try a lens before you buy, so you can do some tests of your own to be sure it's what you want.

--
Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350... Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

Click to expand...
 
28mm is not wide enough on APS-C. I tried Minolta 28-105 for awhile but got rid of it. Previously, I had Tamron 17-50 but it was not long enough (although a fine lens). I currently use the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM 99.99% time. Minolta 50mm 1.7 rarely. This Sigma is heavier than the Sony-Tamron versions so it may unbalance the A33. However, for video, it has the advantages mentioned by others. (HSM,OS)
--
Bert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top